Okri wrote:
I know you acknowledged this, but the fact that America voted for him once is enough to make me fear. I don't know a single person in my life that is truly optimistic that the country won't do it again.
I've been meaning to respond to this for some days.
I can't recall if I've posted my theory of the 2016 election here. I know I didn't in the immediate aftermath, because I was too shell-shocked at the time. But I have to semantically quibble with the notion that "America voted for him once". As we all know, Hillary Clinton got 3 million more votes than he did. His Electoral College triumph was the narrowest imaginable -- three states flipped by margins of less than 1% each. (The three states, remarkably, precisely the three on which Paul Manafort shared polling data with Russia, if you want to go there.) People describe it as drawing to an inside straight, but I'd go further: it was drawing three cards to an inside straight flush. Even more to the point: Hillary's vote margin was almost certainly (per Nate Silver) shrunk by the eleventh-hour appearance of the Comey letter -- not just that it appeared, but that it appeared too late in the game for people who'd decided they could safely stay home or vote third party (lefties for Jill Stein, never-Trump Republicans for Gary Johnson) to process the information. On Election Day, a significant number of non- or third party-voters were persuaded that Hillary had it in the bag, and didn't feel the need to vote for her. Had you re-run the election two days later, with everyone having the knowledge Trump could win, I'm 100% certain Hillary's margins would have been enough to easily carry those three states, and likely Florida/North Carolina as well. The results of all elections since -- with their massively-amped Democratic turnout --seem a retroactive apology to Hillary, and suggest what we're going to see this November.
Put it this way: If you want to say America elected George Bush, and therefore we can't trust them ever again, that's perfectly valid. But Trump's win has so many asterisks and flukes surrounding it that I don't think it's fair to put the onus on Americans as if they'd knowingly elected Hitler. If we do it again in November, then you can make that claim. But I think we're in a very different place.
In fact, the two Bush elections offer a solid analogy. When I said, midway through the 2008 cycle, that I thought Obama would win convincingly, the most common reaction I got was, I thought that in 2004, as well. But 2004 and 2008 were very different elections. The fact that many of us despised Bush couldn't overcome the fact that his unchallenged status within his party, his early-on successes in Afghanistan, and a mostly solid economy gave him a decent (if shaky) shot at re-election. By 2008, the Iraq war was catastrophic, the midterms had diminished the GOP, McCain was weakened by not being the incumbent, Obama was a charismatic opponent, and, of course, in the end the Lehman-led meltdown made the economy a deep negative. Different contexts, different outcomes. Similarly: the 2016 electoral environment was about on edge for the incumbent Dem administration: the economy was good and there were no foreign policy fires, but Hillary was far from charismatic, the party had had a bad midterm, and persistent bad blood from Bernie voters kept the party from truly unifying. All this made the election a close call. This year is very different: an incumbent party walloped in the midterms, a scandal-ridden/impeached president, a public health disaster that's destroyed the economy, and social unrest beyond what we've seen since the 60s. This is an environment in which ANY incumbent would struggle; the fact that this particular incumbent is so personally disliked by so many only makes it easier on the out-party. To believe Trump will triumph in this situation is to believe he has truly unearthly electoral powers. Obviously, none of us is going to fully dismiss that notion until Biden has claimed his 270th EV. But it's kind of like believing in magic. Or, as never-Trumper Mike Murphy says, it's like taking Alexandra's view of Rasputin: because he was there when the kid stopped bleeding, he must have special powers. This thinking eventually put Alexandra in front of a firing squad.
A few words about the convention, while I'm here:
Michelle: divine.
I've always been a sucker for the roll-call of the states, even in these non-suspenseful years, and I thought the countrywide tour was fun. (Was glad to note that "Guam, where America's day begins" survived the new format.)
Barack is still the master. What a speech. As someone said elsewhere, it's remarkable that both he and Michelle are capable of such inspirational, crowd-elevating rhetoric, but can also deliver stern cautionary speeches like these.
I didn't think Kamala's speech was as well-written as the one she gave last week at the introductory appearance, but it had its moments, and she's an excellent speaker who carried it off well. Most people following Barack in peak form would have seemed puny; that she seemed still solid in that context shows how strong a talent she is.
You've got to tip your hat to the Trump folk for their counter-programming this week: a Senate report showing there was indeed collusion with Russia, lining up the St. Louis gun-toters and the Covington kid for their convention (I assume they have a call in to Officer Chauvin), giving a shout-out to QAnon, and having Steve Bannon arrested (aboard a boat!) thanks to the postal service.(ON EDIT: Forgot: calling for a boycott of Goodyear. Who needs Ohio?)